Tim Yates
Australia
Perth
flag msg tools
Tea and Board Games
mbmbmbmbmb
For the purposes of the Naalu's racial tech and performing tactical retreats, what does it mean to "control" a system?

For reference:
Naalu's tech card:
When an opponent activates a system you control, he must immediately remove 1CC (Fleet).

Tactical Retreat rules:
When announcing a retreat, the defender may use a Command Counter from his Strategy Allocation area to activate an adjacent, unactivated system that he controls..


Do you only need to control the airspace with a flying unit of some kind, or do you also need to control planets in the system?

If you control one planet of two, is that enough? What if the other planet is neutral? What if it is controlled by an opponent, but doesn't have any forces on it?

This is pretty important for Naalu players, what with their special rules, and I was unable to find a definitive answer in the TI rules despite searching through FAQs etc. The only thing I can see is that it should refer to just controlling the airspace, or else you can be in a position where if you control one of two planets in a system and the other is neutral, you are unable to retreat to it, but if you don't have anything in the system it is "empty" and you can.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
mbmbmbmbmb
Controlling a system is defined as:

- Controlling ALL planets in the sytem*
- Having at least one non-Fighter ship in the system

Some cards have this explicitly written on them, but this definition still applies to those that don't.


* - If the system has no planets, you qualify for this part by default; controlling all 0 planets still works
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
PMD
Poland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
sigmazero13 wrote:
Controlling a system is defined as:
- Controlling ALL planets in the sytem*
- Having at least one non-Fighter ship in the system


Except of Mecatol Rex for Objective purposes. To "Control Mecatol Rex" means just to have at least one GF on it's surface.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
mbmbmbmbmb
emancypator wrote:
sigmazero13 wrote:
Controlling a system is defined as:
- Controlling ALL planets in the sytem*
- Having at least one non-Fighter ship in the system


Except of Mecatol Rex for Objective purposes. To "Control Mecatol Rex" means just to have at least one GF on it's surface.

Where are you finding that definition? I have never heard of that requirement.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Gagner
United States
Maple Grove
Minnesota
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
sigmazero13 wrote:
emancypator wrote:
sigmazero13 wrote:
Controlling a system is defined as:
- Controlling ALL planets in the sytem*
- Having at least one non-Fighter ship in the system


Except of Mecatol Rex for Objective purposes. To "Control Mecatol Rex" means just to have at least one GF on it's surface.

Where are you finding that definition? I have never heard of that requirement.


He is speaking of the objectives such as "I control Mecatol Rex" These all relate to the planet itself, otherwise they would say the "Mecatol Rex system".

The important part is that Naalu doesn't care what system they control for their racial tech to work. If they control the entire system, their racial tech will work.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
mbmbmbmbmb
DavidG55311 wrote:
sigmazero13 wrote:
emancypator wrote:
sigmazero13 wrote:
Controlling a system is defined as:
- Controlling ALL planets in the sytem*
- Having at least one non-Fighter ship in the system


Except of Mecatol Rex for Objective purposes. To "Control Mecatol Rex" means just to have at least one GF on it's surface.

Where are you finding that definition? I have never heard of that requirement.


He is speaking of the objectives such as "I control Mecatol Rex" These all relate to the planet itself, otherwise they would say the "Mecatol Rex system".

Those objectives don't require you to have a Ground Force on the planet; all you have to do is have control (IE, a control marker is sufficient).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Yates
Australia
Perth
flag msg tools
Tea and Board Games
mbmbmbmbmb
sigmazero13 wrote:
Controlling a system is defined as:

- Controlling ALL planets in the sytem*
- Having at least one non-Fighter ship in the system

Some cards have this explicitly written on them, but this definition still applies to those that don't.


* - If the system has no planets, you qualify for this part by default; controlling all 0 planets still works :)


Why doesn't a fighter count?

Also, what about the situation I posted at the top?

You wish to retreat from battle. There are two systems adjacent to you:
One is an empty space with a planet on it. Nobody has been there yet.
One is a space with two planets. You have dropped a ground force on one of the planets, otherwise it has not been visited.

According to these rules, you would be permitted to retreat to the empty space, but NOT the space where you have already dropped a ground force, because it isn't empty and you don't have control.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
mbmbmbmbmb
setaymit wrote:
Why doesn't a fighter count?

That's just the way control of a system is defined: non-Fighter ships.

Quote:
Also, what about the situation I posted at the top?

You have to personally control ALL planets in the system. If there are any you don't control, even if the planet is "empty", you don't control the system.

Quote:
You wish to retreat from battle. There are two systems adjacent to you:
One is an empty space with a planet on it. Nobody has been there yet.
One is a space with two planets. You have dropped a ground force on one of the planets, otherwise it has not been visited.

According to these rules, you would be permitted to retreat to the empty space, but NOT the space where you have already dropped a ground force, because it isn't empty and you don't have control.

Retreating doesn't require control; it just has to be previously active and free of enemy ships. The tactical retreat rules have an errata to clarify this, but the regular retreat rules don't require control of the system, you just can't retreat to enemy ships (because you cannot retreat into another battle).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Yates
Australia
Perth
flag msg tools
Tea and Board Games
mbmbmbmbmb
sigmazero13 wrote:

Retreating doesn't require control; it just has to be previously active and free of enemy ships. The tactical retreat rules have an errata to clarify this, but the regular retreat rules don't require control of the system, you just can't retreat to enemy ships (because you cannot retreat into another battle).


Aha, you're right. This clarifies everything pretty well. Thanks!

So, control requires all planets to be under your control (if any), and also something better than a fighter in the airspace.

I wish there was some kind of official word on what it means to "control" a system, it would make this all so much easier. As it stands there are half a dozen edge cases on what counts as "controlling" that are easy to get confused (you only need to control your home system's planets, not the airspace, to be able to claim victory points, for one example)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greycloak
United States
Fort Worth
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The Official FAQ and Errata are pretty clear:

P8 - Controlling a System
A player controls a system if he controls every planet in the
system and has at least one (non-Fighter) ship in the system.

P9 - Tactical Retreats
The rules for Tactical Retreats on page 11 permit a player to
retreat to "an adjacent, unactivated system that he controls (or
that is empty)." This should state "an adjacent, unactivated
system that does not contain enemy units."
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Samuel C.
United States
Deshler
Nebraska
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I was pretty sure fighters count if you have type IV drive, right? maybe not.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greycloak
United States
Fort Worth
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The Advanced Fighter Technology changes one aspect of fighters, in that enemy ships may not move through a system containing Advanced Fighters. However, you still may not use them to retain control over a system. It specifically states "Non-Fighter" ships, and fighters with the Advanced Fighter Technology still are Fighters (though more advanced
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
mbmbmbmbmb
mathmagician wrote:
I was pretty sure fighters count if you have type IV drive, right? maybe not.

If anything it would be Advanced Fighters (Type IV Drive just makes your Dreadnoughts and Cruisers faster), but since Advanced Fighters doesn't specifically say it allows for control, it doesn't
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.